Truly proactive PR can’t just be about ‘peace’

Focus on Israel as peace-seeker adopts its enemies’ view: a state defined by conflict.

Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before.
Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications,
like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations,
we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open
and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news
and analysis from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

The combination of the upcoming Israel Apartheid Week and the recent
boycott/divestment/ sanctions (BDS) conference at the University of
Pennsylvania has prompted much discussion about the need for a proactive
public relations strategy rather than a reactive one. I couldn’t agree
more. Disturbingly, however, even many “proactive” strategies are
largely reactive: They focus almost exclusively on portraying Israel as a
seeker of peace, in obvious reaction to the world’s tendency to blame
Israel for the conflict with the Palestinians. And by adopting this
strategy, Israel advocates are essentially adopting its enemies’
definition of it: a country defined solely by the ongoing conflict.

A column
published in these pages last week offers a perfect example of the
problem. In it, Natalie Menaged described how pro-Israel groups on 75
college campuses across North America are responding to Israel Apartheid
Week by organizing Israel Peace Week, which “revolves around a simple,
yet often understated message: Israel wants peace and has demonstrated
its willingness to make painful sacrifices for peace.” That, of course, is true, and it’s certainly a significant element of
Israel’s identity. But it isn’t the only one, or even the most important
– nor should it be.

A campaign that views Israel primarily through the prism of its
peace-making efforts ignores most of what this country is about. And it
thereby reinforces the perception that Israel is
defined mainly by the conflict. If even its advocates treat Israel’s
efforts to solve the conflict the most noteworthy thing about it – the
thing they most want to share with their peers on campus – then why
should those peers think otherwise?

The problem with this is twofold. First, it forces Israel onto a playing
field where it can’t win. For if Israel’s sole claim to support and
sympathy is its “willingness to make painful sacrifices for peace,” then
it will inevitably face constant pressure to make more and more such
sacrifices in order to retain the world’s support and sympathy. That’s
precisely what’s happening now in the realm of international diplomacy:
After Israel withdrew from every inch of both Lebanon and Gaza and got
only rocket fire in exchange, the world didn’t turn around and tell the
Palestinians, “okay, now it’s your turn to demonstrate your bona fides”;
instead, it pressured Israel to demonstrate its bona fides by making
further concessions – a freeze on settlement construction, additional
handovers of territory to the Palestinian Authority, etc. – just to lure
PA President Mahmoud Abbas to the negotiating table.

Sometimes, Israel can acquiesce in these demands. But inevitably, the
moment will come when it must say “no” to protect its own vital
interests. The current American/European/Palestinian demand that it
agree to a border “based on” the 1967 lines is a perfect example: Israel
cannot accede to this demand, because it considers the 1967 lines
indefensible. Yet its refusal has led many Westerners to view it as
unwilling to make the requisite “sacrifices for peace” – and hence,
undeserving of support even by its own advocates’ definition.

Even more problematic, however, is that this focus on the conflict makes
people view Israel as an “abnormal” state. After all, many other
countries also have conflicts with their neighbors. Yet nobody dreams of
defining them by their willingness (or lack thereof) to make “sacrifices for peace.”

India and Pakistan, for instance, have fought three full-scale wars
since their mutual establishment in 1947, plus an ongoing, lower-level
conflict in Kashmir that has killed more than 47,000 people over the past 65 years and continues to claim hundreds
of victims each year. Yet when people think of India, the Kashmir
conflict is rarely the first thing that comes to mind. Instead, they
think of India’s thriving multicultural democracy, its booming high-tech
industry, its enduring pockets of poverty, its award-winning novelists,
its Bollywood movies, and so forth. Similarly, people don’t define
South Korea by its unresolved war with North Korea, which has thus far
lasted 62 years with no end in sight; they think instead of its
flourishing high-tech economy and vibrant democracy.

This abnormal perception of Israel helps fuel the growing discourse over
whether it – alone among the nations – has a “right” to exist. When a
country is seen in three dimensions, the very idea of it ceasing to
exist seems like an abomination: How could anyone countenance the
disappearance of, say, India, with its rich mix of people, cultures,
religions, industry, politics and arts? But when a country is reduced in
the popular mind to nothing more than an endless war with its
neighbors, then its eradication starts to sound logical rather than
appalling: If Israel has no existence beyond the conflict, and the
conflict is clearly undesirable, why not just solve the problem by eliminating Israel?

The truth, of course, is that Israel is vastly greater than the
conflict: It is a vibrant democracy in a despotic neighborhood, a
stimulating mix of different religions, nationalities and cultures, a
flourishing first-world economy, an endless fount of innovative products
and technologies that benefit the entire world. It is also the gripping
story of a people reconstituting itself as a state after 2,000 years of
exile, a people that picked itself up from the ashes of the Holocaust
and defiantly started anew. And once, not so long ago, this was how the
world saw it, too.

Nowadays, so much of the world does define Israel by the conflict that
its advocates neither can nor should ignore the issue, and activists
like those behind Israel Peace Week deserve full credit for their
efforts. Moreover, even those who want to shift the focus away from the
conflict find it difficult when so many prominent Israelis –
politicians, journalists and academics – still talk and act as if
Israel’s policies on the peace process were the be-all and end-all of
its existence.

Nevertheless, the focus must be changed if Israel is ever to win the
public relations war. That doesn’t mean abandoning conflict-related PR,
which remains important. But in any truly proactive campaign, the main
story shouldn’t be about what Israel isn’t – a brutal, oppressive
warmonger – but about all the wondrous, exciting things it is.

The writer is a journalist and commentator.

Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>

The Jerusalem Post Customer Service Center can be contacted with any questions or requests:
Telephone: *2421 * Extension 4 Jerusalem Post or 03-7619056 Fax: 03-5613699E-mail: subs@jpost.com
The center is staffed and provides answers on Sundays through Thursdays between 07:00 and 14:00 and Fridays only handles distribution requests between 7:00 and
13:00
For international customers: The center is staffed and provides answers on Sundays through Thursdays between 7AM and 6PM
Toll Free number in Israel only 1-800-574-574
Telephone +972-3-761-9056
Fax: 972-3-561-3699
E-mail: subs@jpost.com